"Natural, unmodified, meaningful, motivating and real" : authentic learning materials and authentic learning defined by fl teachers and teacher students

(1)

“NATURAL, UNMODIFIED, MEANINGFUL, MOTIVATING AND REAL”:

Authentic Learning Materials and Authentic Learning Defined by FL Teachers and Teacher Students

Master’s Thesis Juuli Rossi

University of Jyväskylä Department of Languages English June 2013

(2)

(3)

JYVÄSKYLÄNYLIOPISTO Tiedekunta – Faculty

Humanistinen tiedekunta

Laitos – Department Kielten laitos

Tekijä – Author Juuli Ilona Rossi Työn nimi – Title

“NATURAL, UNMODIFIED, MEANINGFUL, MOTIVATING AND REAL”: Authentic Learning Materials and Authentic Learning Defined by FL Teachers and Teachers Students Oppiaine – Subject

Englanti

Työn laji – Level Pro-gradu tutkielma Aika – Month and year

Kesäkuu 2013

Sivumäärä – Number of pages 78 + liite

Tiivistelmä – Abstract

Vieraiden kielten opetus ja autenttisuus ovat jo pitkään olleet keskustelun ja mielenkiinnon kohteina. Autenttisuuden monimuotoisuus ja vaikeasti määriteltävyys ovat tehneet aiheesta jopa vaikeasti lähestyttävän. Autenttisuuden määritelmät vaihtelevat suppeahkosta tekstiin ja kielellisiin piirteisiin keskittyvästä määritelmästä laajempaan kokemusperäiseen ymmärrykseen, joka oppija on aktiivinen toimija autenttisuuden luomisessa. Yleinen näkemys autenttisuudesta vieraiden kielten opetuksessa on positiivinen, ja tätä nykyä opettajia kehotetaankin hyödyntämään autenttisuutta kielten opetuksessa.

Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli tuoda vieraiden kielten opettajien ja opettajaksi opiskelevien äänet kuuluviin, ja selvittää miten he, joiden tehtävänä on tuoda autenttisuus luokkahuoneeseen, ymmärtävät ja määrittelevät autenttiset oppimateriaalit ja autenttisen oppimisen. Lisäksi tavoitteena oli verrata määritelmiä yleisiin näkemyksiin autenttisuudesta mahdollisten samankaltaisuuksien ja eroavaisuuksien vuoksi. Tutkimukseen osallistui 76 Jyväskylän yliopistossa vieraiden kielten aineenopettajaopiskelijaa ja 52 vieraiden kielten opettajaa, joiden näkemyksiä kartoitettiin kirjallisella kyselyllä. Opettajien ja opiskelijoiden määritelmät autenttisuudesta olivat monipuolisia, ja tulokset jaoteltiin eri autenttisuuden piirteisiin, jotka vaihtelivat äidinkielenään kohdekieltä puhuvan henkilön tuottamasta tekstistä oppilaalle merkitykselliseen ja motivoivaan materiaaliin. Tulokset kuitenkin myös osoittivat, että autenttinen oppimateriaali oli käsitteenä autenttista oppimista tutumpi. Erityisesti opettajien keskuudessa autenttinen oppimisen määritteleminen koettiin haastavana. Tuloksista nousi myös esiin näkemyksiä, joiden mukaan autenttisuuden olemassaolo vieraiden kielten luokkahuoneessa ja kouluympäristössä on liki mahdotonta.

Tulokset tarjoavat vieraiden kielten opettajakoulutuksen kehittäjille tuoretta tietoa siitä, miten opettajat ja opettajaksi opiskelevat ymmärtävät autenttisuuden vieraiden kielten oppimisen ja opetuksen kontekstissa. Laajempia lisätutkimuksia kuitenkin tarvitaan, jotta saadaan aiheesta kattavampaa tietoa. Ajankohtaista ja tärkeää olisi myös selvittää opettajien ja opiskelijoiden näkemyksiä autenttisuuden tuomista haasteista ja hyödyistä.

Asiasanat – Keywords Authenticity, FL learning and teaching, learning materials, language education

Säilytyspaikka – Depository Kielten laitos

(4)

(5)

1 INTRODUCTION

The terms authenticity and authentic learning materials have become fixed participants in the current discussion concerning foreign language (FL) teaching. However, bearing in mind the elusive nature of the term authenticity, it seems that little interest has been shown in making sure that FL teachers themselves fully understand the diversity of the term in question (Gilmore 2004). As a future FL teacher I believe this is a topic of great importance and in need of further investigation.

The aims of foreign language learning and teaching in the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (2004: 138) emphasise the importance of providing the learner with the ways and means to communicate in different communicational contexts, familiarising him/her to use the language in versatile situations, as well as raising awareness and acceptance of cultural factors. In other words, the aim is to provide the learner with the ways and means to use the language in the real world, outside the classroom. Moreover, in the Finnish Core Curriculum for General Upper Secondary Education (2004), only authentic learning materials and literature are mentioned in the context of FL teaching. This seems to further support the FL education field’s general agreement concerning the positive nature of utilising authentic materials in the classroom, and the advantageous effects their use will have on the learning process (Guariento and Morley 2001). The incorporation of authenticity into FL learning and teaching is evidently strongly encouraged and, to some extent, even required. However, research (in the Finnish context) indicates that FL teachers still rely on textbooks 98 percent of the time (Luukka et al. 2008). Perhaps insufficient knowledge on authenticity and, in general, ways of teaching without the constant support of the course book plays a role in teachers’ reluctance to detach themselves from the textbooks.

The previous studies concerning authenticity in FL learning have mainly focused on the use of authentic materials in foreign language classrooms on a more general level;

looking into the possible positive and negative effects of their use, and what type of authentic tasks should, and could be presented to learners (see Chavez 1998, Kmiecik and Barkhuizen 2006, Pietilä 2006). Little interest has been shown towards the people whose task it is to present and concretely bring authenticity into the FL classroom- the

(8)

teachers and teacher trainees. Therefore, the aim of this study is to gain insight into FL teachers’ and FL teacher trainees’ own definitions and understanding of authenticity in the context of FL learning. More precisely, the focus will be on authentic learning materials and authentic learning, in order to embrace the broader definition of authenticity. Additionally, attention will also be paid on potential differences between the definitions of the teachers and the trainees. If there are such differences, they will be examined in the discussion section. Shedding light on the before mentioned issues may provide one with significant information in terms of possible future focuses and needs in foreign language education, teacher training, teaching practices and continuing training.

The present study begins by concentrating on defining and raising awareness of the many sides of authenticity in Chapter 2. Issues concerning the approaches of FL learning and teaching, and the current aims and requirements for FL teaching in Finland will be dealt with in Chapter 3. The focus of Chapter 4 is on previous studies on authenticity in the context of FL learning and teaching, and Chapter 5 introduces the aims, data and methods of the present study. The data of the present study consists of 75 teacher trainee questionnaire answer, and 52 FL teacher questionnaire answers. The questionnaires consist of mainly open-ended questions, and thus the data and result will for the most part be analysed qualitatively using descriptive content analysis. The findings are reported in Chapter 6, and a more detailed discussion, as well as a conclusion, is compiled in the final Chapter 7.

(9)

2 DEFINING AUTHENTICITY – LINGUISTIC AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES

The definition of authenticity in the field of language education has become increasingly complex over the years. The concept of authenticity spans across multiple fields; authenticity may be found in a social or cultural context, the function of a task, the materials being used or the people taking part in the learning process, task or communicative act (Gilmore 2007: 98). The definitions are often intertwined which makes the task of supplying, for example, FL teachers with an apt and clear definition particularly challenging. As a result, the explanation is often simply overlooked. The word ‘authentic’ is defined as 1: ‘not false or imitation: real, actual, genuine’ (Merriam Webster online dictionary) and (in context of existentialist philosophy) 2: ‘relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life’ (Oxford English Advanced Learner’s dictionary online). The first definition is often the one that is, to a certain extent, more easily understandable and these properties are normally used to define learning material in terms of their linguistic authenticity. The latter definition, however, defines the term authentic as something more complex and personal, and this definition goes hand in hand with the concept of authentic learning (Kaikkonen 2000: 54). Consequently, one alternative in the attempt to comprehend the many faces of authenticity in the context of FL learning and teaching is to divide the term into two main themes: linguistic authenticity and pedagogical authenticity.

2.1 The linguistic approach— text and task authenticity

Van Lier (1996) suggests that the demand for authenticity in foreign language learning may be a response to the unrealistic language in language textbooks, dialogue and tasks.

Linguistic authenticity is primarily concerned with the authenticity of the actual materials that are introduced in the foreign language classroom. The central feature that separates authentic materials from materials presented in the language text or exercise books is the non-edited nature of the material; the materials are taken from ‘the real world’ and they have not been specifically designed for the language classroom (van Lier 1996: 13). Authentic materials are considered to have rich cultural and linguistic content, as well as the possibility to be more motivational, and it is argued that they

(10)

bring a sense of reality into the classroom (Mishan 2004: 219). In addition, Mishan (2005: 33) suggests that the authenticity of a textual piece requires an innate communicative purpose. In other words, the material needs to have, for example, an instructive, informative, or communicative purpose. This definition classifies textual items such as poems, manuals, recipes and newspaper articles as authentic. On one hand, despite the progress and re-evaluation in the field of foreign language textbook planning, the textbook language still often differs significantly from real-life language, and thus fails to aid the learner in the process of gaining the necessary skills needed to achieve communicative competence (Gilmore 2007: 98-99). On the other hand, Simpson (2009:

433) argues further that the language textbooks’ are in general far too Euro-centric, and unable to provide the learner with both linguistically and culturally relatable material the learners would be able to connect with their everyday lives. One suggested reason for excluding certain types of ‘more authentic’ language extracts from language textbooks, for example casual conversations, is that due to their often unstructured form they might be perceived as something that is ‘unteachable’ (Gilmore 2007: 102). Many textbook texts, for example dialogues, often lack several vital speech characteristics, such as hesitation devices, repetition, pauses and false starts (Gilmore 2004: 366-369).

The simplified and tidied up form of the dialogues may create an unnatural and unattainable image that a conversation should always flow perfectly fluently, as well as have a negative impact on how learners’ are able to develop their learning strategies (Gilmore, 2004: 368).

When referring to the characteristics of authentic learning materials, the more drastic, and in a sense the simplest, description defines authentic materials as materials that have been produced by native speakers for native speakers in an authentic or native speaker environment (Gilmore 2007: 98). This viewpoint focuses practically solely on the origin of the text, and the authenticity stems from the manufacturer of the text, not the substance of the text, and how it relates to the learners. Gilmore (2007: 98) suggests that once one begins to view the concept of authenticity subjectively (i.e. incorporating learner authentication etc.), it will grant one the permission to identify practically anything as authentic, and this will result in making the entire term insignificant and meaningless. By contrast, van Lier (1996: 137) argues that it is not wise to criticise a text simply based on the creator and target audience (i.e. native creator for a native audience vs. non-native creator for teaching purposes). Adopting this particular perspective may lead to the conclusion that if the material is produced by a native

(11)

speaker for a native speaking audience, it is automatically ‘good’, which of course is not the case.

Furthermore, the ‘native speaker’ requirement introduces problematic issues, especially concerning English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching, due to the large number of linguistic varieties of English. It has become increasingly difficult to identify what is a native speaker of English, and consequently whose authentic English should be used as a model in language learning (Gilmore 2007: 104). As a result, teaching or exposing learners to varieties of native speaker English may be perceived as unnecessary, since supposedly approximately 80 % of the use of English worldwide is between non-native speakers (Gilmore 2007: 104). The suggestion would be to favour a lingua franca, and possibly cultura franca of English. Gilmore (2007: 104) states that this would perhaps mean teaching a reduced form of English, focusing only on the most important features of the language in terms of providing the learner with the means to function in communicational situations between non-native speakers in international contexts.

Moreover, the question is who would be responsible for, or qualified to define the concept of lingua franca English. On the one hand, it might be argued that this approach would in fact increase the real-world aspect of foreign language learning, since it would more accurately represent the different types of intercultural language needs and communicational encounters the learners are likely to come across in their everyday lives (Gilmore 2007: 104). On the other hand, however, lingua franca English would most likely focus on formal and more universally understandable varieties of English, and thus damage the learner’s ability to use appropriate language in situations in which it is vital to use more informal linguistic and pragmatic devices, for example, trying to make friends (Gilmore 2007: 105). In addition, excluding the target language culture(s) from foreign language learning might hinder the development of learners’ intercultural communicative competence (Gilmore 2007: 106, Kaikkonen 2000).

The focus on linguistic text based authenticity is still widely supported but towards the end of the 20^th century the learner’s needs and role in the learning process became a topic of interest. For a long time, the learner was perceived as a passive recipient in the learning process, but now the learners active participation is often very much encouraged (Kaikkonen 2000:55).

(12)

2.2 The pedagogical approach — authenticity via learner autonomy

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the focus of FL learning and teaching is shifting, and has already shifted, away from the teacher-centred approach towards a more learner-centred model, which places emphasis on learner autonomy (Farrell and Jacobs 2010: 8). Accordingly, the main focus of the pedagogical or subjective definition for authenticity is the learner and the learner’s personal feelings, self-actualization and intrinsic motivation. Mishan (2005: 37) argues that working with authentic tasks and texts that represent realistic language-use requires in depth learner participation and input. In other words, learner autonomy is essentially inevitably present in the process.

Widdowson (1979: 165) suggests that the whole concept of viewing authentic language as an inherent characteristic of a piece of language does not carry much weight, since authenticity should instead be regarded as a quality the learner grants. Authenticity is viewed as a characteristic of the relationship the reader has formed with the task or material at hand, and how one chooses to respond to the material. Van Lier (1996: 124- 125) perceives authenticity as a question of relevance:

Authenticity, on this view, is not something that is a property of some piece of language, but rather, a speaker’s intention and a hearer’s interpretation of the language used.

This view of authenticity proposes that authenticity cannot be achieved simply by presenting the learners with authentic texts (van Lier 1996: 125). In other words, if the student is presented with a linguistically authentic text, she should then personally authenticate the material by attempting to form a more personal interaction or relationship with the material presented. Additionally, the manner in which the learning materials are dealt with is also extremely crucial and influential in terms of preserving the concept of authenticity. Accordingly, the learning tasks used should be as authentic as possible as well (Guariento and Morley 2001: 349). If, for example, the learners are introduced to an audio recording of a poem, the learning task should be something that

‘preserves’ and strengthens the authenticity of the core material. In this case an authentic learning task could be interpreting the poem, rather than, for example, learning it by heart. The learner’s personal beliefs and ideas would be taken into account and the learner would play and active part in the learning process by creating personal associations and connections with the material.

(13)

The learner-centred approach to authenticity takes into consideration the attitudes and emotions of the learner. Jaatinen et al. (2009:20) argue authentic learning occurs when the learner is an active agent in the learning process. Moreover, the formation of emotional connections and reactions are deemed important as they promote personal growth (Jaatinen et al. 2009:21). Furthermore, Guariento and Morley (2001: 352) propose that attaining an authentic response from a learner, may require sacrificing the authenticity of texts.

Widdowson (1996: 68) goes even further in suggesting that it might in fact be impossible for linguistically authentic language (i.e. language produced by a native speaker of English) and autonomous learning to coexist, since presumably the realities and experiences of a foreign language learner do not match the realities and experiences of a native speaker.

The task of agreeing on one specific definition of authenticity seems near impossible, and thus adopting a more complex and flexible view of authenticity might be the solution. Instead of determining that materials, tasks and input are authentic only if they are, for example, produced by a native speaker, authenticity could be perceived as a hierarchical degree system (Chavez 1998: 279). Chavez (1998: 281-282) identifies eleven different authenticity factors: immediacy, currency, medium authenticity, native inception, native reception, cue authenticity, intent authenticity, inclusiveness, source authenticity, initiative authenticity, setting authenticity and cultural (goal) orientation.

Different situations could, therefore, include only one or possibly five or six different authenticity factors, and the situations would thus have varying degrees of authenticity.

The greater the number of authenticity factors, the more authentic reliability is bestowed on the situation (Chavez 1998: 299). For example, the linguistic authenticity of a text or native speaker input does not guarantee that every learner will perceive the task or situation as authentic, since the linguistically authentic input the learners receive is only one aspect of authenticity (Chavez 1998: 298-299). In addition, an authentic English speaker has normally been typically perceived to mean either an American or an English person, but the notion of a native speaker of English has become more elusive and difficult to define due to the widespread usage of English as a world language, and in many contexts a second language (Gilmore, 2007: 104). Gilmore (2007:104) argues that the rather strict definition of an authentic language speaker is challenged if all proficient English speakers are accepted when referring to a native speaker. Therefore, one might argue that the linguistic background or nationality of the language teacher is

(14)

not of utmost importance. Not being a native speaker of the target language does not prevent the teacher from providing the learners with linguistically authentic materials, and moreover, authentic learning experiences.

The problematic issue concerning authenticity through experience and relevance is the large number of learner varieties, in other words, individuals in the classroom. Every individual learner has her own distinct areas of interest, and if authenticity may be achieved only through the learner’s personal relationship and response to the task, is the process of authentication even possible? It is presumably very difficult for the learner to engage in a task, if she does not understand the relevance of the task and is not genuinely interested in it. However, the teacher may be able to further authentic learning by including the learners in the task selection, and authenticating the task for the learners by clarifying the relevance of the task (Guariento and Morley 2001:351).

According to the notion of pedagogical authenticity, the power of judging the authenticity of a piece of material, task or the learning process is given to the individual.

Van Lier (1996:128) describes the learners and teachers’ role in the realisation of authenticity in the following manner:

Authenticity is not brought into the classroom with the materials or the lesson plan, rather, it is a goal that teachers and students have to work towards, consciously and constantly [...] authenticity is the result of acts of authentication, by students and their teacher, of the learning process and the language used in it.

If the learner learns to embrace the freedom of choice and take more responsibility, it might be possible for him/her to be able to identify features (e.g. in an article) that are authentic for them personally, overcoming the fact that the task or topic might not have been interesting or motivating as a whole. Meaningful learning experiences and connections are created by associating personal experience and engagement into the learning process. This ideology is the central concept of experiential learning, a foreign language learning approach tightly connected to pedagogical authenticity. Experiential learning, as well as other approaches and issues concerning foreign language learning and teaching will be discussed further in the following chapter.

(15)

3 FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING

The focus of the following chapter will be on the different approaches, aims and requirements of foreign language learning and teaching. Firstly, attention will be paid on experiential learning, which is a learning approach closely connected to the pedagogical authenticity (section 3.1). Secondly, possible difficulties and challenges concerning the reception of new approaches in the field of FL learning and teaching are discussed (section 3.2), and lastly, the aims and requirements of FL learning and teaching in Finland are introduced (section 3.3).

3.1 Experiential learning

One of the pioneering experiential education theorists, Dewey (1938), emphasises the contrast between traditional and progressive education. Traditional education is often perceived as teacher-centred and lacking focus on the individual need of the learner.

Traditional education rejects the idea that learning is, or should be perceived as inherent.

In other words, information is ‘poured in’, rather than making sure that the learner actually assimilates the provided information, and plays an active role in the learning process. Furthermore, the learning process is put under external pressure that is reinforced by the school environment and the teacher’s status as an external superior authority (Dewey, 1938: 17-18). The traditional education ideology sets the learning goals for the learner, instead of trusting the learner himself with the task. In addition, the tools to achieving the goals are provided in the form of a textbook, and an authoritarian, the teacher, is placed in the classroom. The teacher’s task is to tell the learners what they are to do next, and how. As a result, the role of the learner in their individual learning process remains minimal.

Contrastingly, progressive education promotes life-long learning, emphasises usage of varied learning resources and learning by doing, as well as constantly evaluating which skills are needed in the future (Dewey 1938). Furthermore, progressive education underlines the educational system’s role in educating learners to become responsible members of society (Dewey 1938). Education should not take place in a vacuum.

Dewey (1938: 45-46) stresses the inclusion of the real world in the classroom, and taking into account the needs and capacities of individual learners. Moreover, rejection of the external control would result in the need to make use of one’s innate experiences,

(16)

social and physical surroundings in order to achieve meaningful experiences and connections (Dewey 1938: 46).

Another foremost experiential education theorist is David A. Kolb, whose Experiential Learning Model (1984) is cited by Kaikkonen (2000: 54) as the core theory of how experiential learning is perceived today. The Experiential Learning Model (1984) theory emphasises the importance of the learner’s active participation in his own learning and the utilisation of real-life experiences and knowledge, thus deepening the learning process. The educational system is criticised for actively excluding the “real-world”

environment from the process of learning, and it is proposed that the key to creating connections between the different events in one’s life as a whole, as well as consequently promoting the continuity of the learning process, is adopting an adaptive viewpoint of learning (Kolb 1984: 33). This viewpoint stresses the significant role of experience in learning, and learning itself is defined as the process of converting experience into knowledge (Kolb 1984: 38). Experience may be perceived as the true foundation of authenticity (Kaikkonen 2000: 57).

Authenticity in the context of learning in general is defined as the meaningfulness of a learning situation and learning itself (Kaikkonen 2000: 54). Authentic learning may be perceived as a method of taking the learner’s own beliefs, experiences and feelings into account, and utilising them in the learning process. The inclusion of the learner’s own experiences has the potential to transform learning into a meaningful experience with significant and relevant learning outcomes. The learner’s sense of being in charge of, and experiencing, her own learning is the core idea of authentic learning (Kaikkonen 2000: 54). Involvement, relevance, responsibility and flexibility are the cornerstones of operational experiential learning (Walter and Marks 1981: 2). The flexibility of the learning process, including tasks and work methods, enables inclusion in the classroom, in other words, catering for the needs of diverse learners. If the learners are included in the development of the curriculum, the learning process will become more individualized, concrete and self-directing, thus possibly resulting in an intrinsically motivated learning activity (Kolb 1984: 14).

Co-operative learning teams are a concrete example of how to bring experiential learning into the classroom (Kohonen 2001: 34). The heterogeneous teams would be carefully chosen by the teacher, and would include both faster and slower learners.

(17)

More advanced learners would get a chance to further their knowledge by helping others, and lower level learners would possibly benefit from peer tutoring from learners who share the same world view and are themselves involved in the same learning experience. Moreover, when the learners are active participants in their own learning, the teacher has more resources to focus on individual or group tutoring, gaining information on the learners, observing the learning process. Additionally, adopting an experiential way viewing learning requires certain attributes from the teacher: firstly, the teacher should aim to establish and maintain a positive and collaborative learning atmosphere; secondly, be aware of one’s own attitudes towards learning and adopt a reflective attitude; and thirdly, develop a tolerant attitude towards mistakes, ambiguity, uncertainty and backsliding (Kohonen 2001: 34). FL learning and teaching should aim towards providing the learner with opportunities to test their learning in an authentic manner, and in as authentic circumstances as possible, thus supplying the learner with real experiences of the target language and its use (Kaikkonen 2000: 55).

3.2 Challenges concerning new approaches in FL learning and teaching

New ideas and ideologies are at first often perceived as deviations in the society’s harmonious system of norms and codes of conduct, disrupting life as it is and awakening the need for change. Naturally, the same applies to the emergence of new methods and theories in the field of foreign language learning and teaching. The paradigm shift required for a new paradigm to gain acceptance involves the dismissal of old belief systems, and thus the shift normally requires a fairly lengthy resistance and transition period (Kohonen 2001: 30). For instance, communicative language teaching has had a strong foothold in second language education since the 1970s after, to a certain extent, replacing the Audio-Lingual Method and Grammar-Translation Method (Farrell and Thomas 2010: 2). As a result, the FL learning requirements shifted from a strict focus on grammatical accuracy, to a developmental approach in which errors were acceptable and great emphasis was placed on target language fluency. Farrell and Thomas (2010: 2) state that this change was also evident in the role of the teacher in the classroom; the teachers’ role as an authoritative controller and knowledge dispenser was challenged by a more facilitating and instructing role. However, the grammar and vocabulary centred focus of foreign language learning and teaching is deep-rooted, and this has stalled the spread of the more communicative and experience-based approaches

(18)

(Kaikkonen, 1998:16). In addition, the workload that comes with the teacher profession can be quite overwhelming. Especially for FL teachers who face the task of trying to keep up with such an evolving matter as language, and the cultural aspects connected to the target language. Furthermore, the external pressures, such as trying to keep up with the curriculum requirements, are present on an everyday basis. These factors may play a part in teachers’ hesitancy to embrace and use new methods, and especially methods that mean stepping away from the shelter of the language textbook.

Moreover, teachers are obligated to ‘teach’ the certain contents stated in the curriculum, and the language book normally follows the requirements of the curriculum fairly specifically (Rantala 2006: 142). Consequently, the majority of teachers quite understandably rely primarily on the material and work methods provided by the textbook. However, nowhere is it stated that everything should be done following the textbook; a textbook is not the curriculum. In other words, a teacher is given the freedom to choose the work methods, the focus and to some extent even the schedule, taking into account the circumstances, the needs of the learners and the teacher’s professional and personal strengths (Rantala 2006: 143). One can only wonder whether this uncertainty stems from insufficient instruction and focus on different learning and teaching styles and material design during the teacher education programme. If one is uncertain of how to do something, or what something actually means, it is highly unlikely that that ‘something’ would voluntarily be included into the classroom practices. However, the learners role in the process of trying out different learning and teaching methods should also be acknowledged. Learners are socialised into specific learning models extremely quickly, and the paradigm shift may often face more resistance from the learners than from the teacher. Thus, learners should be made aware of different ways of learning, as well as be provided with the means for being able to recognise and utilise methods best suited for their individual needs as early on as possible. This would strengthen learner autonomy, and if the learner manages to work independently, lessen the workload of the teacher as well (Kohonen 2001: 35).

As it has already been established, the notion of authenticity is extremely multidimensional, and difficult to ‘pin down’ due to different types of authenticity. As a result, the task of agreeing on a specific and cohesive definition and basing one’s actions and ideas on that one particular characterisation seems practically impossible, and possibly not even necessary or wise. MacDonald et al. (2006) identify four different types of authenticity (i.e. text authenticity, competence authenticity, learner authenticity

(19)

and classroom authenticity), and they argue that emphasising one type over the other may have serious consequences in terms of hindering and simplifying the richness of the learning process. Chavez’s (1998) concept of different degrees of authenticity also suggests that there could be various levels and types of authenticity depending on the task or situation.

Moreover, the goal would not be to try and include every single type of authenticity in one situation, but to try and make use of the different types in a balanced manner. This view could bring flexibility into the material selection process, since the range of material and tasks would become a great deal more flexible. Also, it could help make the materials and work methods more versatile, and thus more suitable to different learner’s needs. Each learner could assess the authenticity of each situation on a personal level, and place more value on specific authenticity factors meaningful for him (Chavez 1998: 299). In addition, perhaps accepting the multifaceted nature of authenticity would also help ease the teachers’ potential insecurities regarding the issue.

3.3 Current aims and requirements of FL teaching (in Finland)

The aims and requirements of FL teaching in Finland are regulated by the National Core Curricula for Basic and Upper Secondary Education. In addition, the guidelines presented in the Common European Framework of Reference are taken increasingly into account in the field of FL learning and teaching in Finland. Next, the relevant parts of the National Core Curriculums for both Basic and Upper Secondary Education, and the Common European Framework of Reference are introduced.

3.3.1 The National Core Curricula and the Common European Framework of Reference

The National Core Curriculum (hereafter NCC) includes the matters that need to be included in teaching. In other words, it provides a national framework for designing curricula on a more local level. The quarters that organise education (i.e. schools) are responsible for developing and putting the curriculum into action. The NCC for basic education is the framework for grade levels 1-9, and the latest version was published in 2004 by the National Board of Education, and the latest NCC for upper secondary education was published in 2003. It is stated that teachers need to follow the curriculum

(20)

that is reinforced by the educational facility in which the teaching occurs (NCC 2004:

10). Additionally, the importance of teacher participation in the process of constructing the curriculum is emphasised, and the possibility of learner participation in curriculum planning is also acknowledged. The Common European Framework of Reference (hereafter CERF) is set by the Council of Europe, and it aims to provide guidelines for FL learning in Europe. However, they are indeed simply guidelines and thus it is no school in Finland or elsewhere in Europe is required to abide by the recommendations in the CERF. Next, the requirements and aims regarding learning in general, and learning in the FL context are paid closer attention.

Learning is described in the following manner (NCC 2004: 18-19). Firstly, learning is both an individual as well a communal process that aims to cultural and societal awareness. Secondly, learning is an outcome of the learner’s goal-oriented and active participation in the learning process. Thirdly, learning is dependent on learners’

individual motivation, knowledge-base, as well as learning and work methods. Lastly, learning is context bound and thus close attention needs to be paid on the versatility of the learning environment and work methods. Furthermore, the learning environment should aim to further the learners’ motivation and independence, as well as encourage learners to set personal goals. In addition, the work methods are chosen by the teachers, but they should aim to be motivating, further learners’ preparedness to take responsibility for their own learning, as well as help develop learners’ learning strategies and their active utilisation in the learning process. All in all, the view of learning in the NCC seems entail quite a few of the same characteristics as the notion of experiential learning.

The aims of FL learning and teaching in the NCC for Basic Education (2004: 138) emphasise the importance of providing the learner with the ways and means to communicate in different communicative contexts, and simultaneously raising awareness and acceptance of cultural factors. Additionally, the learners should be encouraged and instructed on how to put their language skills to use. At the early stages of FL learning (i.e. grades 1-6) it is emphasised that the learning and teaching processes should be closely intertwined with the learners’ personal experiences and situations that are familiar to them (NCC 2004: 138). The NCC is merely a framework, and that is the reason why specific teaching methods and task types are not typically mentioned.

However, in the NCC for General Upper Secondary Education (2003), authentic

(21)

learning materials and literature are the only material types specifically mentioned in the context of FL teaching. The incorporation of authenticity into FL learning and teaching is evidently strongly encouraged and, to some extent, even demanded. All in all, foreign language learning and teaching at the present moment generally aims to provide the learner with the ways and means to use the language in the real world, outside the classroom. Concrete text type suggestions regarding FL learning and teaching, such as books, manuals, brochures, labels and tickets, are mentioned in the CEFR (2001:95).

However, the deep-rootedness of grammar and vocabulary focused FL learning and teaching models has hindered the evolution of learning materials and teaching methods towards a more communicative and approach (Kaikkonen 1998: 16). Kaikkonen (1998:

17) criticises the controlling role of published learning material in the field of FL learning and teaching, and its influences on the ‘actual’ curriculum that is realised in the language classrooms, which rarely directly focuses on the needs of the learner. Research (in the Finnish context) seems to support this claim since FL teachers still rely on textbooks 98 per cent of the time (Luukka et al. 2008). If the aim is to see learning as a process in which the learner is an active participant, the teachers need to be able to disengage themselves from perceiving FL learning as a constricted cognitive event that leaves no room for creativity or more free interpretation (Kaikkonen 1998: 22).

The need for varied learning methods is stated in the Finnish Core Curriculum for Basic Education (2004). Paying close attention to the planning of task contents, as well as work and learning methods used in the classroom would help cater for the need of different learners the meaningfulness of learning experiences requires (Kaikkonen and Kohonen 2000: 8-9). Furthermore, the necessary promotion of the learner’s active participation in her own learning is further supported by The European Language Portfolio (2001) developed by the Language Policy Division of the European Council.

The goal of this method is to support the development of learner autonomy, plurilingualism and intercultural awareness and competence, as well as to allow users to record their language learning achievements and their experience of learning and using languages. The Portfolio gives the learner an opportunity to influence and assess their own learning process, and learning outcomes. The European Language Portfolio has been introduced in Finland already some time ago, and it is promoted in the subject teacher education programme to a certain extent.

(22)

4 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON AUTHENTICITY IN THE CONTEXT OF FL LEARNING AND TEACHING

Albeit authenticity seems to have become a permanent participant in the discussion concerning FL learning and teaching, the research on the topic is far from extensive.

Previous studies concerning authenticity have focused on the use of authentic materials in foreign language classrooms on a more general level; looking into the possible positive and negative effects of their use, and what type of authentic tasks should, and could be presented to the learners. Gilmore (2004) compared the discourse features of seven dialogues in course books (published between 1981 and 1997) with comparable authentic interactions. The comparison revealed that a number of differing discourse features that normally play a central role in authentic interaction, were not particularly well, or at all, present in the course book dialogue interactions (Gilmore 2004: 366-369).

The discourse features included; length and turn-taking patterns, lexical density, number of false starts and repetitions, pausing, frequency of terminal overlap or latching, and the use of hesitation devices and back-channelling (Gilmore 2004: 363). However, further small-scale inquiry of three more recent course books (published in 1996, 1999 and 2001) suggested that at least some of the more up-to-date text books seem to incorporate more of the discourse features of authentic language use (Gilmore 2004:

370). As a result, Gilmore (2004: 371) emphasises the necessity to present the learners to authentic language use data if we aim to equip the learners with the skills to interact outside the foreign language classroom.

The views and attitudes of language learners’ regarding authenticity and authentic materials have been subject to some research (see Chavez 1998, Pietilä 2009, Kmiecik and Barkhuizen 2006). Chavez (1998) focused on how University-level German students rate 53 situations in relation to their; the perceived level of authenticity;

contribution to language learning as perceived by language learners; learners’

reluctance/anxiety/difficulty or ease/enjoyment to interact with authentic texts (Chavez 1998: 278-279). The participants were asked to rank themed scenarios (e.g. reading a menu, reading a letter, listening to directions, watching the news) according to the number of varied ‘authenticity factors’ evident in the situations (Chavez 1998: 281).

Eleven authenticity factors were constructed for the purpose of the study, and they include characteristic such as; native inception: produced by a native speaker; native reception: produced for a native speaker; currency: up-to-date information; source

(23)

authenticity: discourse appearing in its original and natural context; cultural (goal) orientation: aim is to exchange meaningful and/or cultural information (Chavez 1998:

281-282). The results indicated that native inception was the authenticity factor ranked the highest in relation to its effects on the level of authenticity, contribution to learning, difficulty and enjoyment (Chavez 1998: 282). However, in overall ranking the presence of one authenticity factor was not sufficient to support the authenticity of the text; the larger the number of authenticity factors present, the better the results (Chavez 1998:

299).

Kmiecik and Barkhuizen (2006: 1) researched learner attitudes to different types of listening input. The study was conducted with a group of elementary level refugee and migrant students, and the aim was to explore the students’ attitudes towards listening materials that were specifically prepared for foreign language learning, and non-edited authentic materials. In this context, authentic materials are defined in the following manner: “… spoken texts that have not been produced for language learners, and which fulfil some social purpose in the language community outside the L2 classroom.”

(Kmiecik and Barkhuizen 2006: 2). The students were presented with both authentic and non-authentic extracts of information and discussion programmes, news and advertisements (Kmiecik and Barkhuizen 2006: 9-10). Non-authentic materials are then, logically, materials specifically designed for the language classroom (for example, language textbook exercises), and they may lack in the level of topicality (Kmiecik and Barkhuizen 2006: 2). During a four week study, students listened to one non-authentic and one authentic text every week, and the data was collected after each session in the form of questionnaires, interviews and informal classroom observation (Kmiecik and Barkhuizen 2006: 1). The findings of the study indicate that the students have more positive attitudes towards the non-authentic texts due to fact that they were often more easily understandable; the speech delivery speed and vocabulary were regularly more challenging in the authentic texts (Kmiecik and Barkhuizen 2006: 11). The results of the study seem to support the claims that authentic material usage with lower level students may cause frustration, demotivation and hinder the learning outcomes (Guariento and Morley 2001). However, the general ‘negativity’ towards authentic texts may be a result of insufficient exposure to authentic language, and as a result, the students may have developed unrealistic comprehension expectations (Kmiecik and Barkhuizen 2006: 11).

(24)

In the Finnish context, Pietilä (2009) conducted a questionnaire study aiming to compare different language learning materials from the English language learners’

perspective. The data consisted of the questionnaire answers of 22 seventh-grade pupils and 13 ninth-grade pupils from two different comprehensive schools. The majority of the questions were multiple-choice. The first section focused on mapping out the pupils’

views on the amount usage of authentic materials, the course book, as well as the English and Finnish languages in general. The second section focused on the learners’

personal views on different materials and learning types in the classroom. The results showed that learners found the use of authentic material useful, but the learners did not feel that only authentic material would enhance their learning. Moreover, the results revealed that practically every participant thought that artificial material is useful in FL teaching as well. Additionally, the learners felt that authentic materials were used sufficiently in foreign language teaching in Finnish comprehensive schools. The latter finding is rather surprising since it is often assumed that the usage of authentic materials in foreign language learning is insufficient. However, this finding may be influenced by the fact that the learners may not entirely understand what is meant by authentic materials, and thus could not assess the sufficiency of their usage accurately (Pietilä 2009: 18).

Fairly little interest has been shown towards the people whose task it is to present and concretely bring authenticity into the foreign language classroom – the teachers. Su (2008) looked at the attitudes of students and instructors toward textbook-based language skills and authentic materials in selected adult ESL language programs.

Additionally, Su explored the effectiveness of using authentic materials, as well as the frequency of use. According to the students, the most important authentic materials are, for example; newspapers, discussions, weather reports, computer and TV programmes (Su 2008: 168). In contrast, the findings indicate that the instructors do not often want to incorporate electronic equipment, such as computers, internet and television, into their teaching All in all, the findings seem to suggest there is a major difference of opinion between the students and instructors’ needs and wishes (Su 2008: 169).

Oikarinen (2008) examined authenticity in foreign language learning and teaching from the perspective of the teacher, focusing on both authentic materials and authentic communication in the classroom. Additionally, to goal was to establish how much authentic material truly was used in the classroom. Authentic materials (i.e. materials

(25)

not specifically developed for the language classroom) and authentic communication (i.e. communication used to deliver real, meaningful information; asking a question and receiving an answer) were included in the notion of authenticity (Oikarinen 2008: 47).

The data was collected observing the lessons of two German teachers, and interviewing the teachers. The results showed that the communication during the lessons is extremely authentic, in the sense that both the teacher and the students were able to interact and express themselves freely and in an authentic manner. Additionally, the teachers view authentic materials positively, but their use is heavily affected by the teachers’ personal eagerness and lack of time (Oikarinen 2008: 67).

The previous studies seem to reveal that despite the fact that even researches themselves are apparently undecided concerning the definition of authenticity in foreign language learning and teaching, no one has been interested in finding out how foreign language teachers understand the term they are practically required to implement in their teaching.

For this reason it has become apparent that there is a need for a study focusing solely on how foreign language teachers and teacher trainees define authenticity in the context of foreign language learning and teaching. Gaining insight on the viewpoints of the people whose concrete task it is to bring authenticity into foreign language classroom may provide one with significant information in terms of possible future focuses and needs in foreign language education, teacher training and teaching practices.

(26)

5 AIMS, DATA AND METHODS

The aims, data and methods of analysis of the present study are presented and discussed in Chapter 5. Firstly, the research questions the study aims to answer are introduced, and the data is presented. Secondly, the questionnaire and the participants are introduced and the data collection process is explained. Lastly, the process of data analysis is clarified.

5.1 Research questions

The aim of the study is to gain insight on FL teachers and FL teacher students’

understanding of authentic learning materials and authentic learning. Moreover, the goal is to find out whether the teachers and students are provided with the required tools (i.e.

knowledge) to putting the aims and requirements stated in the Finnish NCC (2004) into action. The results will hopefully implicate whether there is a need for further continuing training, and development in the field of teacher training (regarding authenticity).

Authenticity and foreign language learning and teaching is at the present time a topic in need of closer examination due to the general requirements of communicative competence and implementation of authenticity in FL learning. However, the challenging task of defining authenticity proposes certain difficulties in the fulfilment of these requirements. Hence, it is vital to focus on the views of teachers and teacher trainees, whose prerogative it is to choose the materials and teaching and learning methods used in the foreign language classroom.

The present study has three main research questions, and each question has specifying sub-question(s):

1) How do FL teachers and teacher trainees define the term authentic learning materials in the context of FL learning?

1.1To what extent are the FL teachers familiar with the term?

1.2Do the FL teachers use authentic materials?

2) How do FL teachers and teacher trainees define the term authentic learning in the context of FL learning?

(27)

2.1 To what extent are the FL teachers familiar with the term?

2.2 What are the FL teachers’ views regarding the level of importance of authentic learning in the context of FL learning?

3) Are there differences between the definitions of the FL teachers and teacher students?

3.1 How do the teachers and teacher students’ definitions resonate to the existing definitions of authenticity in the field of FL learning and teaching?

Since there are no previous studies focusing on the exactly similar topic, there are no fixed hypotheses regarding the results one might obtain. It can merely be hypothesised that there will most likely be similarities between the existing definitions of authenticity in the context of foreign language learning and the teacher and student participant responses. However, it cannot be hypothesised to what extent the differing approaches to authenticity (i.e. the linguistic and pedagogical) will be present in the participant responses.

The concept of authenticity has been a topic of conversation in FL education for quite some time, and thus it might be expected that it would somehow be included in the FL teacher education. Consequently, one might hypothesise that the student responses will be more diverse and knowledgeable regarding the concept of authenticity, in contrast to FL teachers who have graduated in the 1980s and 1990s when authenticity was not as current a topic as it is now. This is simply due to the assumption that the FL teacher trainees may, to an extent, already have been familiarised with authenticity in the context of FL learning and teaching in the course of their studies. Whereas the teachers have surely encountered the term at one point or another, but they may not have been given information regarding its meanings. The aim is to coherently answer the research questions, as well as consider the proposed hypothesis. The core of the study is the data, and thus the next step is to introduce the data collection process, and then move on to describing the questionnaire and participants, and lastly the analysis process.

(28)

5.2 Data collection

The data of the present study consists of questionnaire answers of FL teachers and teacher trainees. The teacher data was collected in autumn 2011, and the trainee data was collected in autumn 2009 by Pia Bärlund, who at the time was a lecturer and researcher at the University of Jyväskylä. The data collection was carried out at the beginning of a course focusing on authenticity and foreign language learning and teaching. However, the students were asked to participate in the study before they had been given any information regarding the topic of the course. The trainee data was never utilised and thus an opportunity to utilise the data surfaced. The utilisation of the trainees’ definitions of authentic learning materials and authentic learning enabled incorporating a comparative aspect to the present study. The comparison of foreign language teachers and teacher trainees’ definitions of authenticity may prove to be very fertile in terms of possible implications regarding the developmental needs of foreign language teacher training and continuing training of teachers.

The teacher data was collected using a questionnaire that was handed out to the teachers participating in a National Board of Education’s continuing training course, which was organised by the Palmenia Centre for Continuing Education of University of Helsinki.

Instead of resorting to the more traditionally used method of mailing the questionnaires to potential participants, the training course setting seemed more ideal for several different reasons. Firstly, the response rate in mailed questionnaires is normally fairly low, and the same problem applies to questionnaires sent via e-mail. Thus gathering the questionnaire data in a more ‘closed’ setting helped increase the response rate, and one did not have to ‘hunt down’ and harass the participants for answers. Secondly, the topic of the lecture following the questionnaires was authenticity and foreign language learning and teaching, so the questionnaires also served as a stimulus for the topic, and the lecturer was glad to hand out the questionnaire. Additionally, now there was somewhat lesser need to worry about the time consumption factors that often affect the response eagerness of busy professionals such as teachers, since answering the questionnaire did not take place during the teachers’ free time. However, time issues were naturally taken into account in the design process of the questionnaire. Thirdly, a course organised by such an important quarter as the National Board of Education might have a positive influence on the diversity (i.e. the languages taught and the grade levels) of the group of participants. In other words, the aim was to receive answers from a

(29)

language and grade level wise heterogeneous group, instead of, for example, mainly English teachers teaching in upper secondary school. The questionnaires used to collect the data are introduced in the following section (5.3); starting with the teacher student questionnaire and then shifting the focus on the questionnaire presented to the FL teachers.

5.3 The questionnaire

There were a number of reasons for choosing a questionnaire as the data collection tool for the present study. First and foremost, since the aim of the study was to gain a somewhat general view of how FL teachers (and teacher trainees) define authentic learning materials and authentic learning, and the only practical and realisable way of collecting enough data was a questionnaire. One-on-one interviews could have been used to gain more detailed views on the matter, but it did not seem purposeful since the goal was to be able to make a generalisation of FL teachers and trainees’ definitions of authenticity. Additionally, a questionnaire was also the natural choice considering the data collection setting and number of participants. Secondly, the form of a questionnaire can be formulated fairly freely, and one can, for example, include both closed and open- ended questions. Consequently, the results may be analysed in different ways, producing both qualitative and qualitative findings (Dörney 2003: 10). Thirdly, an anonymously filled in questionnaire aims to create a setting in which the participant feels free and secure to express their true ideas and thoughts. Social pressure and expectations may sometimes push a person to adjust their views and answer in a way they think they are expected to. However, the anonymity of a questionnaire may ease these pressures.

Furthermore, there a several factors that may go awry with even the most carefully planned questionnaire (Dörnyei 2010: 7-9). Firstly, even if the questions have been formulated with considerable amount of contemplation and thought, the occurrence of misunderstandings is unquestionably possible. Questions may be misunderstood, and they cannot be clarified since the researcher and the participant do not meet. Moreover, the attempt to further explain a question might result in unconsciously guiding the participant’s answers to a certain direction. Furthermore, the researcher may also interpret the participant’s answers falsely or in a different way the participant intended them to be understood. Secondly, the length of the questionnaire may influence the

(30)

participants’ willingness to answer; several pages and complex questions may make the entire questionnaire seem like too much of an effort. Thirdly, the motivational level of participants can never be estimated beforehand. If the participants find the topic uninteresting or too difficult, they may simply choose not to fill in the questionnaire.

The teacher students were presented with a very simple one-page long questionnaire consisting of three open-ended questions in Finnish. Since the trainee data was collected by someone else, it is not possible to provide answers as to why the questionnaire is the way it is. The questionnaires were anonymous, and no background information was gathered. In order to keep the focus of the study on the two major concepts, authentic learning materials and authentic learning, and to avoid introducing yet another complex term (i.e. teacherhood = opettajuus), the third question or theme was excluded from the teacher questionnaire. The questions were:

Questions one and two of the student questionnaire were used as the base for the FLteacher questionnaire (see Appendix). By asking the teachers the same questions in the exact same form ensures the comparison of the answers. The questionnaire is three pages long and consists of three sections. Viewing the process of filling in the questionnaire from the participant’s point of view, the 3-page-length of the questionnaire was revised to be fairly optimal (Dörnyei 2010: 12). The first section focuses on background information, the second section on authentic learning materials and the third section on authentic learning. The basic information section entails questions concerning the participant’s age, degree, year of graduation, teacher training, major and minor languages, teaching experience and primary workplace (i.e. upper secondary school, vocational school etc.).

1. What is meant by authentic learning material in the context of foreign language teaching?

2. What is meant by authentic learning in the context of foreign language teaching?

3. What is an authentic foreign language teacher?

(31)

The second section concentrates on authentic learning materials and consists of four questions. The second section aims to answer the first research question. The first question is a multiple-choice question in which the participants are asked if they are already familiar with the term authentic learning materials. The choices are; a) yes, b) to some extent, c) no. The second question is the same open-ended question as in the trainee questionnaire; what is meant by authentic learning materials in the context of foreign language teaching? Additionally, in order to gain more detailed and lengthy answers, the participants were asked to provide an example or examples. The third question aims to find out if the teachers utilise authentic learning materials. The choices were; a) yes, as often as possible, b) sometimes, c) no. The fourth question concerns those who answered that they do not use authentic materials. In other words, they were asked to give reasons for their choice of answer.

The third section concentrates on authentic learning and consists of four questions. The first question in the third section is also a multiple-choice question focusing on whether the participants are familiar with the term authentic learning. The choices are; a) yes, b) to some extent, c) no. Following the same pattern used in the second section, the second question is the open-ended question that also appeared in the trainee questionnaire; what is meant by authentic learning in the context of foreign language teaching? The participant was asked to give an example or examples. The third question focuses on the participant’s view on the importance of authentic learning in foreign language teaching.

The participant was asked to choose one of the following alternatives; a) very important, b) fairly important, c) not very important, d) not at all important. Lastly, in the fourth question the participant is asked to validate their answer to question number three.

The reason for using open-ended questions was to provide the person participating in the study the opportunity to express his opinion as free of restrictive alternatives as possible, as well as possibly gaining more detailed information on the topic. Moreover, the alternative of multiple-choice questions (e.g. in the form of; choose which factor you associate with authentic materials/authentic learning) was rejected because it was vital to ensure the participants did not receive any ‘tips’ or guidance to help them define the terms. As discussed, authenticity in FL learning and teaching is such an elusive and complex term which can be understood in many different ways. In order to truly be able to gain insight on the teachers and students’ personal understanding of authenticity, it

"Natural, unmodified, meaningful, motivating and real" : authentic learning materials and authentic learning defined by fl teachers and teacher students